I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 1 2 - CT - 0 1 1 7 6 - S CT W IL L IE K IN Z IE
v. B EL K D EP A R T M EN T S TO R ES

, L .P., B EL K

, I N C ., DA V I D F L OWER S

, S HA NA Y GRA NT , K A T HY CO FF EY , D O N AL D SM

I TH , N I KK I DAG G I N S, RAY FAJA AN

D STAFF

M ARK I NV ESTM EN T, LLC ON W RI T OF CE RT I ORARI D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 07/ 05/ 2012 TRI AL J UDG E: HO N. J EF F W EI LL , S R. T R IA L C O U R T A T T O R N E Y S : R IC H A R D P A U L W IL L IA M S , III C O U RT N EY M CR EY N O LD S W I LLI A M S T E R R IS C A T O N H A R R IS T H O M A S L Y N N C A R P E N T E R , J R
. E D W A R D J . C U R R IE , J R
. RE BE CC A B
. CO W AN CO UR T F RO M W HI CH AP P E AL E D: CI RC UI T CO UR T OF T HE F I RS T J UDI CI AL D I STRI CT O F HI ND S COU NTY A T T O R N E Y S F O R A P P E L L A N T : R IC H A R D P A U L W IL L IA M S , III C O U RT N EY M CR EY N O LD S W I LLI A M S DARYL M AT T HE W NE W M AN ATT ORNEYS F OR APP EL LE ES : THOM AS L YNN CARP ENT ER, J R. J OSEPH W ALTER G I LL E D W A R D J . C U R R IE , J R
. RE BE CC A B
. CO W AN NATURE OF THE CAS E: CI VI L - P ERS ONA L I NJ URY DI S P OS I T I ON: THE J UDGMENT OF T HE CO UR T OF AP P E AL S I S AF F I RMED I N P AR T AND RE VE RS E D I N P AR T
. T HE J UDGMENT OF T H E C I RC U I T C O U RT O F TH E FI RST JU D IC IA L D IS T R IC T O F H IN D S C O U N T Y IS R EV ER SED A N D TH E C A SE I S R E M A N D E D - 03/ 12/ 2015 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D:

### The f ac ts ar e t ake n verba tim from th e op inio n o f the C ourt of App eals. 1 

### 2 M ANDAT E I S S UE D: EN BA NC. KI TCHEN S , J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. W i l l i e K i nzi e s ued B el k D epart m ent St or es , L
. P. , B el k, I nc. , D avi d Fl ow er s , Shanay Gr a n t , Ka th y Co f

f e y , Don a l d Sm i th , Ni k k i Da g g i n s , Ra y Fa j a , St a f f ma r k I n v e s t me n t , LL C, and J ohn D oes 1-5 ( B el k D ef endant s ) fori nj ur i es he sus t ai ned w hi l e unl oadi ng a tr ai l ert hat h a d tra n sp o rte d m e rc h a n d ise to a B e lk re tail sto re . T h e tri a l co u rt d ism iss e d K in z ie’ s la w su it
w i th pr ej udi ce, f

i ndi ng thatK i nzi e had mi s r epr es ent ed hi s i nj ur i es dur i ng d i scovery. T he C our tof A ppeal s r ever s ed the j udgm entof the tr i al courtand r emanded the cas e, hol di ng t hat K in z ie h a d n o t m isre p re se n ted h is in ju ri e s a n d th a t th e u lti m a te s a n c tio n o f d ism iss a l w ith pr ej udi ce w as notw arr ant ed. H avi ng gr ant ed cert i ori ari , w e af f i r m , i n par t , t he j udgm entof the C ou rtof A pp eal s; w e r everse and r em and the j ud gm ent of the C i rcui tC ou rtof the F i rs t J u d ic ia l D is tr ic t o f H in d s C o u n ty .

F ACT S AND P ROCE DURAL HI S TORY

1 K in z ie, a tru c k d riv e r fo r tw e n ty -e ig h t ye a rs, w a s e m p lo y e d b y T ria n g le T rucki ng atthe t i m e of

the i nj ur i es a ti s s ue. Tr i angl e trucki ng had di s pat ched K inzie a s a tru ck d ri v er fo r B elk s ince 2 0 0 7
. A t th e ti m e o f his injury , K inzie’s jo b re q u ire d h im to p ick u p a lo a d e d tra iler o f B e lk c a rg o fro m th e B e lk di s tr i but i on cent eri n B yr am, M i s s i s s i ppi , and unl oad i tatotherB el k l ocat i ons throug ho ut the U nit ed S t at es. O n Jul y 14, 2009, K i nzi e pi cked up a l oaded tr ai l eratthe B el k di s tr i but i on cent eri n B yr am and t r avel ed t o a B el k f aci l i ty i n C ul l m an, A l abama. I n the cour s e of unl oadi ng hi s truck, w hi ch cont ai ned appr oxi m at el y 2, 161 cas es of

### In r es ponseto a moti on to dism is s in thetria l c ourt , Kinzi e a ll ege d that hehad be en 2 

### unloa ding a

tr uck “ carrying approxim at ely 2,161 c as es of c argo, we ighing 18,229 lbs. ” In his co mplaint, Kin zie hadallegedthe g ross w eight to h ave b een o nly7,8 54 po un ds. 3 c a rg o , w e ig h in g a to tal o f 1 8 ,2 2 9 p o u n d s, K in z ie in ju re d h is b a c k . S h o rtly 2 af t erhe r ece i ved hi s i nj ury, an am bul ance t r ans por t ed K i nzi e t o t he emer gency room , w here ph ysi ci ans diagno sed him w i th a cen tral -di sc p rotrusi on , dis c des i cca t i on, and di s c bul gi ng. K i nzi e i ni t i al l y engage d i n a nonsur gi cal , cons ervat i ve tr eatm ent . T hen, on J anuary 4, 2010, K i nzi e underw enta bi l at er al L 4- 5 hemi l ami nect om y and dis cect om y surgery. O n M ay 25 , 201 0, K i nzie’ s treat i ng phy si cian , D r. H o w ard H o lada y , ex p lai n ed tha t K in z ie po sses sed the c ap ab il ity to p erfo rm se d e n tar y to li g h t du ty w o rk , w ith a lifti n g res trictio n o f n o g re a ter th a n tw e n ty p o u n d s, a n d re s tr ictio n s o n fre q u e n t sto o p in g a n d b e n d in g . A lth o u g h K in z ie cl ai m ed t o need a cane f ors t abi l i ty and as s i s t ance , D r . H ol aday pr ovi ded no r ecomm endat i on forK i nzi e t o us e a c ane. K i nzi e as s ert ed thatD r . H ol aday al s o w arned hi m t o w ean hi m s el f of f of the ca ne. T he r es ul t s of f unct i onal capa ci ty eval uat i ons ( FC E s ) per f or m ed on A pr i l 20, 2010, a nd M ay 13, 2010, s how ed thatK i nzi e coul d per f or m w ork on a s edent ary- phys i cal de m and l evel o n ly. T h e F C E s also sh o w ed K inzie p o sses sed a d y sfun cti o n al sac roil iac (S I) jo in t. O n O c to b e r 2 1 , 2 0 1 0 , K in z ie file d su it a g a in st th e A p p e llee s, a lleg in g th a t h is b a c k i n j u ry r e s u l t e d f

r o m t h e App e l l e e s ’ n e g l i g e n tl o a d i n g o f l i g h tc a r g o i t e ms o n the b o tt o m o f th e trail er a n d h ea v y ca rgo it em s on th e top , as w ell as fa il u re to se cu re the ca rgo . K inzie su b m it s tha t a m ed ical esti m ate p rojec ts his future m edi cal expens es w i l l t ot al $117, 406. 90. H e al s o s ubm i t s thathi s pastm edi cal expens es , l os tw ages , f

utur e medi cal expens es , and f utur e l os tw ages amount t o $664, 890. 37. D ur i ng di s covery, K i nzi e, thr ough couns el , pr ovi ded r es pons es t o i nt err ogat or i es and al s o pr ovi ded depos i t i on t es t i m ony, al l of w hi ch r es ponded t o que s t i ons r el at i ng t o hi s i nj ury and expl ai ni ng hi s pr es ent phys i cal l i m i t at i ons r es ul t i ng f r om hi s i nj ury. I nt err ogator y 5 i nqui r ed aboutany opi ni ons r ender ed by a doc t ororm edi cal pr ovi derr egar di ng K i nzi e’ s i nj ur i es. K i nzi e obj ect ed t o i nt err ogat ory 5 as bei ng out s i de the perm i s s i bl e sc ope of di s covery, butans w er ed by expl ai ni ng thathe had been “a s s i gned perm anentw or k r es tr i ct i ons of no l i f t i ng gr eat er than t w enty pounds, ” w as prohi bi t ed f r om “f r equents t oopi ng orbendi ng, ” and “had be en t ol d that[ he] can onl y perf orm w or k i n the s edent ary phys i cal d e m a n d lev e l at e ig h t ho u rs a d a y , fiv e d a y s a w e e k .” K in z ie f u rth e r sta ted in hi s r es pons e thathe had “be en t ol d that[ he has ] a t en per centw hol e per s on

### Mississip pi Rule o f Civ il Pro cedure 37 (e) pro vid es: 3 

### [T]he co urt mayimpo se up onanypartyor c o un se l suchsanctio ns as maybe ju st, inc luding thepayment of r ea sona bleexpe nse s and attor

neys ’ f ee s, if any party or counsel (i) fails w itho ut g o o d cau se to co op erate in th e framing of anapp rop riate disco veryplanbyagreement . . . o r (i i) o therw ise abu ses the d iscov ery p rocess in se eking, m aking or r es is ting dis cove ry. 4 im p airm en t rati n g . ” Interro g atory 1 1 stated : “D esc ri b e all a cti v it ies y o u w ere abl e t o per f

or m orpart i ci pate i n pr i ort o J ul y 14, 2009, thatyou cannot per f or m orpart i ci pat e i n now . ” K i nzi e ans w er ed the i nt err ogat ory by s t at i ng: A s a r es ul tof

the i nj ur i es s us t ai ned i n this acci dent , I have the f oll ow i ng l i m i t at i ons : notabl e t o cutgr as s ort ake c ar e of the l aw n, unabl e t o per f

or m house cl eani ng, notabl e t o dr i ve butf or very s hor tper i ods of

t i m e, unabl e t o s t and or w al k f orl ong peri od [ s] of t i m e, cann ot l i ftor carry object s or even g rocer i es, di f f i cul ty engagi ng i n us ual s exual a ct i vi t i es , una bl e t o pl ay and h o ld g ra n d c h ild re n , an d o th e r a c tiv iti e s a s b e fo re th e in c id e n t. U n b e k n o w n st to K in z ie o r h is c o u n se l, th e A p p e llee s h ire d a n in v e stig a to r to p e rfo rm s u rv e ill a n c e o f K in z ie d u rin g th e p e rio d o f A u g u st 1 9 , 2 0 1 1 , to Sept ember22, 2011 ( thi r ty- f ourdays )
. O f

the thi r ty-f

ourday per i od s ur vei l l ance , tw enty- f

i ve m i nut es of

e xcerpt s of

vi deo f oot age w er e pr ovi ded. T h e e x ce rpts p rov ided w ere ed it ed an d are n o t a co m p let e v ideo o f th e e n ti re thi r ty- f our - day t i m e p er i od. A s acknow l edged, exce rpt s of the f oot age pr ovi ded s how s naps hot s i n t i m e dur i ng the thi r ty- f our- day s ur vei l l ance per i od. T he i nves t i gat orpr epar ed a r eportof K i nzi e’ s act i vi t i es dur i ng the per i od. T he exc erpt s of the vi deo f

oot age r evea l K i nzi e dr i vi ng and w al ki ng t o the pos tof

f i ce a nd hi s at t orney’ s off i ce, and w or ki ng w i th anotherm an on hi s s hed i n the bac kyar d of hi s hous e. In r es pons e t o the vi deo evi dence , K i nzi e cl ai m s thathe neve rvi ol at ed hi s physi ci an’ s r es tr i ct i ons , nordi d he per f or m any t as k thathe s t at ed in his d i s covery r es pons es thathe coul d not per f or m , even w hi l e w or ki ng on hi s s hed. K inzie v. B el

k D ep’t Stor es , 2 0 1 4 W L 3 4 1 7 6 1 2 , * * 1 -2 (M is s . C t. A p p . J u ly 1 5 , 2 0 1 4 ), c e rt. gr ant ed , 1 5 6 S o . 3 d 9 8 1 (M iss. 2 0 1 4 ). ¶ 2
. S taf

fm a rk In v e stm e n t filed a m o tio n to d ism iss p u rsu a n t to M iss iss ip p i R u le o f C iv il P ro c e d u re 3 7 (e ), c la im in g th a t K in z ie h a d m a d e m isre p re se n tatio n s u n d e r o a th w h ile 3

### Miss. R . Civ . P. 3 7(e). 5

r es pondi ng t o i nt err ogat or i es a nd dur i ng hi s depos i t i on. T hi s m ot i on l at erw as j oi ned by the
r emai ni ng B el k D ef

endant s . T he tr i al courtagr eed a nd di s m i s s ed t he cas e w i th pr ej udi ce on J ul y 5, 2012. T he tr i al courtconcl uded: B ase d o n the p lai n ti ff’ s false rep rese n tat ion s m ad e in h is i n terrog atory r es pons e and i n hi s depos i t i on, al ong w i th the vi deo s ur vei l l ance the def endant s obt ai ned on hi m , thi s Courtf i nds thatthe pl ai nt i f

f’ s caus e of

act i on sh o u ld be dism issed w ith preju d ice as a sa n cti o n for his con d u ct. T h is C o u rt fur ther f i nd s that no l essersanct i on i s approp ri at e un der the cir cum st ances. ¶3
. K i nzi e appea l ed, and w e as s i gne d the c a s e t o the Courtof A pp e a l s , w hi c h he l d: “B as ed on the f

or egoi ng, w e f

i nd no evi dence of

m i s r epr es ent at i on by K i nzi e i n hi s r es pons es to th e in ter ro g a to rie s a n d d e p o sitio n q u e stio n s. A s s tate d , w e re v iew K in z ie’ s re sp o n se to i nt err ogat ory 11 i n the cont extof al l of the i nt err ogat ory r es pons es . . . . ” K in zie , 2 0 1 4 WL 3417612, at*7. W e gr ant ed cert i ori ari to clarify tha t, tho u g h K inzie d id co m m ita d isco v ery
v io la tio n , th e u ltim a te s a n c tio n o f d is m is s a l w ith p re ju d ic e w a s n o t w a rr a n te d
. S TANDA RD O F REVI EW ¶ 4
. “ T ria l c o u rts a re a ffo rd e d b ro a d d isc re tio n in d is c o v e ry m a tters , a n d th is C o u rt w ill notoverturn a tr i al court ’ s deci s i on unl es s ther e i s an abus e of di s cr et i on . . . . ” A s hm or e v. Mis s . Auth. on Educ . Tele v is i on , 1 4 8 S o . 3 d 9 7 7 , 9 8 1 (M iss. 2 0 1 4 ). “[I] f th e tri al co u rt appl i es the ‘ corr ectl egal s t andar d, ’ w e mustaf f i r m the dec i s i on, r egar dl es s of w hatany one
o f us i n d ividu all y m igh t h av e ruled ha d w e b ee n th e jud g e, u n less th ere is a ‘de fi n it e a n d fi rm convi ct i on t hatthe courtbel ow comm i t t ed cl earerr or . ’ ” I d. at982 ( quot i ng Cit

y of Jacks on
v. R h a ly , 95 So. 3d 602, 607 ( M i s s . 20 12 ))
. T hu s , the C our ts houl d engage i n “meas ur ed

### 6

r es tr ai nti n conduct i ng appel l at e r evi ew ” and s houl d notdeci de w hetheri tw oul d have d is m is s e d th e o ri g in a l a c tio n b u t w h e th e r d is m is s a l a m o u n te d to c le a r e rr o r. A shm ore , 148 So. 3d at982. A N A L Y S IS ¶5. T hi s C our t has m ade i t cl ear t hat a “t r i al court s houl d di s m i s s a caus e of act i on f or fail u re to c o m p ly w ith d isco v ery o n ly u n d er the m o st extr em e ci r cum s tances . ” P ier ce v. Her itage Props . , I

nc. , 688 So. 2d 1385, 1388 ( M i s s . 1997) ( emphasi s added)
. A ccor di ngl y,
w e m ustdet erm i ne w hetherthe ci rcum st ances before us ar e suf fi ci entl y extr em e t o justi fy d ism iss a l. A n a n a ly sis o f th e re lev a n t ca se law re v e a ls th a t th e y a re n o t. ¶6. I n P ier ce , th is C o u rt h e ld tha t d ism iss a l w a s a p p ro p ria te b e c a u se th e p lain tiff h a d fla toutl i ed underoat h aboutt he exi s t ence of an eye w i tnes s t o the i nci dentthathad ca us ed the pl ai nt i f f’ s al l eged i nj ur i es and had “ cons i s t ent l y obs truct ed the pr ogr es s of the l i t i gat i on by fi l i ng adm i t t edly f

al se respon ses t o v ari ou s di scovery reque st s and b y sw eari ng t o fal se t es t i m ony i n depos i t i ons . ” I d. a t 1 3 9 0 . T h is C o u rt d e ter m in e d th a t d ism iss a l w a s a p p ro p ria te b e c a u se th e p lain tiff h a d a c ted in b a d fa ith , an d th a t an y sa n c tio n o th e r th a n “ d ism iss a l w o u ld vi r tual l y al l ow the pl ai nt i f f t o getaw ay w i th l yi ng unde roa th.
. . . ” I d. at 13 9 0 -91
. T h e C o u rt
n o ted , h o w e v e r, th a t itw o u ld re m a in v e ry re lu c tan t to a ffirm su c h a h a rsh sa n c tio n , a n d d id
s o i n thatcas e onl y beca us e i tp rovi ded “the par adigm situ ati o n in w h ich th e p lai n ti ff know i ngl y r ef

us ed t o be f

or thcomi ng and ac t i vel y w i thhel d the truth f r om the courtand gave
a gr eat deal of per j ur ed t es t i m ony. ” I

d. at 13 9 1 (em p h asis ad d ed ). ¶7. I n other cas es i n w hi ch thi s C our t has af f i r m ed di s m i s s al , t he dis cov ery vi olat i ons
w er e s i m i l ar l y egr egi ou s. I n Scoggins v. E l l z ey Bever ages, I

nc. , 74 3 S o. 2d 99 0 (M i ss.

### 7

1999) , the pl ai nt i f

f , w ho coul d per f

ect l y r eca l l the det ai l s of s ever al as pect s of

herl i f e f or
m any years, com plet el y fai l ed to di scl ose several i nv asi ve m edical proced ures and d octor s’ vi s i t s t hatw er e r el evantt o hercl ai m . T he tr i al courti n thatcas e f ound thatthe pl ai nt i f

f m ade an “appar ent l y d el i berat e att empt t o s ubvertthe j udi ci al pr oces s , ” and s he pr es ent ed “no
cr edi bl e expl anat i on f

orthe t ot al l ack of

congruence betw een hert es t i m ony and herm edi cal
r ecor ds
. ” I

d. at994. T hi s C our taf

f i r m ed, agai n not i ng t hatt hi s cas e pr es ent ed a r ar e i ns t ance “w her e the conduc tof

a pa r ty i s s o egr egi ous thatno others anct i on w i l l m eetthe demands of j us t i ce. ” I

d. a t 9 9 7
. ¶8. M or e r ece nt l y, i n A s hm or e v. Mis s is s i ppiA uthorit

y on E ducati onal

T elevi s i on , 148 So. 3d 977 , 9 85 ( M i s s . 2 01 4) , we a f f i r m e d a d i s mi s s a l wher e the p l a i nt i f f h a d “ l i ed by
conce al i ng a r i ght
- knee s ur gery and dege ner at i ve j oi ntdi s eas e i n his ri ghtknee. ” The plai nti ff al so had hidden the ex i st ence of “a subsequ ent l eft -knee i njury or dege nerat i ve d i sc di s eas e i n hi s back, des pi t e medi cal r eport s t o the contr ary. ” I d. O n ce ag ain, th e d isco v ery viol at i on s that j ust i fi ed d i sm i ssal w ere cl ear and u neq uivocal fal sehoo ds. ¶9. H ow ever , w her e the di s covery vi ol at i on a ti s s ue i s l es s e xtr eme and open t o pot ent i al tru th fu l in terp re tatio n s, th is C o u rt w ill n o t h e sita te to re v e rse a tria l c o u rt’s R u le 3 7 d ism iss a l. I n W ood ex re l

. W ood v. B iloxiP ubli c School D is tr i ct , 75 7 S o . 2d 1 9 0 , 1 9 3 (M iss. 2 0 0 0 ), the pl ai nt i f

f re s ponded t o an i nt err ogat ory re gar di ng t he natur e of hi s i nj ur i es by st at i ng, “I no l ongeram abl e t o enj oy t i nker i ng w i t h aut om obi l es as the s t oopi ng, bendi ng, and
s quatt i ng ar e pai nf

ul
. ” A f t ervi ew i ng unde r covers ur vei l l ance vi deo of the pl ai nt i f

f “w al ki ng
nor m al l y, s quatt i ng, tw i s t i ng, bendi ng, and gener al l y per f or m i ng nor m al dai l y f

unct i ons
w i thoutany i ndi cat i on of i m pai r m entor pai n, ” the t r i al courtdi s m i s s ed the pl ai nt i f f’ s cas e.

### As relatedabo ve, K inzie’s an swer to Interro gato ry 1 1 w as as follo ws: 4 

### I have th e fol lowing limi tati ons: not a bleto c ut gras s or

take c ar e of

lawn, unabl e t o pe rf

orm hous e cl eaning, not

a blet o drivebut

f or ver y shor t pe ri ods of tim e, unabl e t o st and or wa lk f or l ong period[ s] of tim e, cannot l if t or carr y ob jects or ev en g roceries, difficu lty eng agin g inusu al sexu al activities, unab le to p lay an d h oldgran dch ildren , andoth er activities as be fore incident
. (E m p h a s is a d d e d .) 

### 8 I d. T hi s C our tr ever s ed, f i ndi ng that“the onl y di s covery r es pons e w hi ch w as contr adi ct ed by evi den ce atthe heari ng [ on the m oti on t o dis m i ss] w as one a m biguou sl y w orded respon se t o one i nt err ogat ory ques t i on. ” I d. at 1 9 4
. A s th e p lain tiff’s re sp o n se ind ica ted tha t h e c o u ld
s t i l l per f or m cert ai n t as ks , j us tw i th l es s enj oym entthan bef or e, the C our thel d thatthe d efe n d an ts did n o t est ab li sh that the p lai n ti ff “k n o w ing ly m ad e false statem en ts i n d isco v ery and i tw as c ert ai nl y note s t abl i s hed that[ the pl ai nt i f f ] ha d engage d i n a pa t t ern of such fal se
r es pons es . ” I

d. (em p h asis a d d ed ). T h e C o u rth eld “tha t th e a ll eg ed u n tru thfu lnes s in W o o d ’s i nt err ogat or i es , i f

a ny, d[ i d] notc ons t i tut e a s uf f i ci ent l y e gr egi ous di s covery vi ol at i on s uch thatno others anct i on w i l l m eetthe demands of j us t i ce. ” I

d. at195. ¶1 0
. W e find the d isco v ery v iolati o n in this ca se to b e m o re s im il ar to the all eg ed d isco v ery vi ol at i on i n W

ood than the unequi vocal l y f al s e and mi s l eadi ng di s covery viol at i on s f ound i n P ier ce , Sc og

gins , and A shm ore . I n W ood , the pl ai nt i f

f s t at ed thathe coul d no l ongerenj oy
cert ai n act i vit i es as he coul d bef or e bei ng i nj ur ed. H er e, K i nzi e s t at ed thathe coul d not p e rfo rm se v e ra l ac tiv iti e s a s h e co u ld b e fo re h is in ju ry . H e w a s tru th fu l w h e n it ca m e to h is 4

m edi cal r ecor d and hi s m edi cal l y di agnos ed w or k r est ri ct i ons . K i nzi e i ndi s put abl y w as i nj ur ed. H e w entt o an emer gency r oom i m m edi at el y af t erhi s acc i dentand, atthatt i m e, w as

### 9

di agnos ed w i th centr al
- di s c pr otrus i on, di s c des i cca t i on, and di s c bul gi ng. H e underw entan in v a siv e su rg ica l p ro c e d u re o n h is s p in e . T h e a c tiv ity o b se rv e d in th e u n d e rc o v e r v id e o d id nots tr ay out s i de of

hi s m edi cal w or k r est ri ct i ons , and i tdi d notencompas s any of t he
s peci f i c ac t i vi t i es thathe s t at ed he no l ongercoul d per f or m . T he tr i al courtf

ound thi s t o be
a d isc o v e ry v io latio n . W h ile th e trial c o u rt ca n n o t be sa id to h a v e b e e n m a n ife stly w ro n g in i t s det er m i nati on thatther e w as , i n f act , a di s covery vi ol at i on, the s ever e s anct i on of d is m is s a l a m o u n ts to c le a r, r e v e rs ib le e rr o r a m o u n tin g to a n a b u s e o f d is c re tio n . ¶ 1 1
. K in z ie d id n o t b la ta n tly lie a b o u t th e e x iste n c e o f a w itn e ss , as d id th e p lain tiff in P ier ce , n o r d id h e c o m p lete ly m isre p re se n t y e a rs o f m e d ica l h isto ry a n d p ro c e d u re s, a s d id the pl ai nt i f

f i n Sc og gins , nordi d he hi de any others ur ger i es , as di d the pl ai nt i f f i n A shm ore . T he C our tfi nds no “t ot al l ack of congruence ” betw een K i nzi e’ s re s pons es and hi s m edi cal
r e c or ds , a s the tr i a l c ou r tf ou nd i n Scoggins . Sc og gins , 743 So. 2d at994. N ordo w e f i nd thi s t o be “the par adigm s i tuat i on i n w hi ch the pl ai nt i f f know i ngl y r ef

us ed t o be f

or thcomi ng and act i vel y w i thhel d t he t ruth fr om the courtand gave a gr eat deal of per j ur ed t es t i m ony”
as thi s C our tf

ound i n P ier ce . P ier ce , 688 So. 2d at1 391 ( emphasi s added)
. I ns t ead, and
s i m i l art o the pl ai nt i f

f i n W ood , K in z ie a n sw e re d a n in ter ro g a to ry a b o u t t h e e x te n t o f h is i nj ur i es i n a w ay thatthe tr i al courtthoughtw as m i s l eadi ng. A nd her e, al though the tr i al
courtf ound K i nzi e’ s respon s e t o be f al s e, the per cei ved f

al s ehood ar os e i n an i s ol at ed in c id e n t, an d itce rt ainly h as n o t bee n estab li sh ed that K inzie’s statem en ts i n d isco v ery ind icate an y k ind o f pa t t ern of m i sl eading o r f al se r espon ses. ¶ 1 2
. A n a lo g o u sly , th is C o u rt h a s re v e rse d a trial c o u rt’s d ism iss a l b a se d o n R u le o f C iv il P rocedu re 41(b) w here the tr i al cou rtfai l ed to con si der l essersanct i on s, i ncludi ng “fi nes,

### 10

cos t s , ordamages agai ns tpl ai nt i f f orhi s c ouns el , a t t orney di s ci pl i nary meas ur es , condi t i onal di s m i s s al , di s m i s s al w i thoutpr ej udi ce, and expl i ci tw arni ngs . ” A m . T el . & T el . C o. v. D ays I nn of W inona , 7 2 0 S o . 2 d 1 7 8 , 1 8 2 (M iss. 1 9 9 8 ) ( q u o tati o n o m itted). Just as this C o u rt fo u n d th e n , in th is c a se , “ it is n o t at a ll ce rta in th a t [l e ss e r] sa n c tio n s w o u ld h a v e b e e n fu til e i n expedi t i ng the pr ocee di ngs . ” I d. A l though w e do notf

i nd, as di d the C our tof

A ppeal s , t hat the tri al co u rtab u sed it s d iscreti o n w h en itd eterm ined that K inzie h ad co m m itted a d isco v ery
v io latio n , w e h o ld th a t th e tria l c o u rt e rre d w h e n it d ism iss e d th e c a se c o m p lete ly a s a re su lt of thatvi ol at i on w hi l e payi ng mer e l i p s ervi ce t o the pos s i bi l i ty a nd pr act i cal i ty of l ess er
s a n c tio n s . CO NC L US I ON ¶1 3
. D ism issal is ap p rop ri ate o n ly u n d er the m o st ex tr em e circu m stan ce s an d o n ly w h ere le s s e r s a n c tio n s w ill n o t s u ff ic e . P ier ce , 688 So. 2d at1388- 89. T hi s i s notan extr eme cas e,
a n d l e s s e rs a n c t i o n s c a n d e t e rmi s l e a d i n g r e s p o n s e s w i th o u td i s mi s s i n g Ki n z i e ’ s c l a i ms al t ogether
. A j ury w i l l w at ch thi s vi deo, a nd thatmay i nf l uence i t s ul t i m at e det erm i nat i on. B u t a j u ry o u g h t t o m ak e tha t ult im ate d eterm ination , n o t th e tri al j u d g e. T h e d isco v ery vi ol at i on ati s s ue i s nots uf f i ci ent l y extr eme t o j us t i f y a f ul l and f i nal di s m i s s al of

the ca s e. W e ther efor e aff

i rm thatpor t i on of

the j udgm entof

the C ourtof

A ppeal s w hi ch hel d t hat di s m i s s al w i th pr ej udi ce w as notw arr ant ed. W e r ever s e the C our tof A ppeal s ’ f

i ndi ng t hat the tri al co u rtab u sed it s d iscreti o n w h en itd eterm ined that K inzie h ad co m m itted a d isco v ery vi ol at i on. W e r ever s e the j udgm entof the C i r cui tC our tof

the Fi r s tJ udi ci al D i s tr i ctof H i nds C o u n ty d ism iss in g th e c a se w ith p re ju d ice , an d w e re m a n d th e c a se fo r tria l.

### 11

¶ 1 4
. THE J UDGM EN T OF THE COURT OF AP P EA LS I S AF F I RM ED I N P ART AN D R E VE RS E D I N P AR T . T HE J UD GMEN T OF T HE C I RC UI T C OU RT OF T HE FI R ST JU D I C I A L D I STR I C T O F H I N D S C O U N T Y I S R EV ER SED A N D TH E C A SE I S RE M ANDE D. W AL LE R, C. J . , DI CKI NS ON, P . J . , LA M AR AND KI NG, J J . , CONCUR. CO LEM AN, J . , DI S S ENTS W I TH SEP ARA TE W RI TTE N O PI NI ON J OI NED BY R A N D O L P H , P .J ., C H A N D L E R A N D P I E R C E , J J . CO L E M AN , J US T I CE , DI S S E NT I NG : ¶15. I am of t he op i nion t hat t he s t andar d of r evi ew carr i es the i ns t ant cas e. A bus e of di s cr et i on i s t he m os tdef er ent i al st andar d. U nderi t , w hen the tr i al j udge empl oys the corr ect l egal s t andar d, i ti s notourj ob, as the appe l l at e court , t o s ubs t i tut e ourj udgm enti n pl ace of th a t o f t h e tr ia l ju d g e ’s
. See A s hm or e v. Mis s is s i ppiA uth. on E duc. T

elevi s i on , 148 So. 3d 977, 982 ( ¶11) (M i ss. 2014)
. G i ven thatK i nzi e enga ged i n a f l agr antdi s covery vi ol at i on, I w o u ld u p h o ld the tr ial jud g e’s d ism issal of th e c ase as a san cti o n for th e d isco v ery
v io latio n . A c c o rd in g ly , I re sp e c tfu lly d iss e n t. ¶16. In reachi ng it s hol di ng, the maj or i ty pl ace s gr eatw ei ghton W oo d e x r e l . W ood v. B iloxiP ubli c School

D is tr i ct , 757 So. 2d 190, 193 ( ¶ 11) ( M i s s . 2000)
. I thi nk W ood is cl earl y d i st i ng uis hab l e. W oo d st at ed i n a r espon se t o an i nterrogat ory t hat, w i th h i s i njur i es, he w as “no l onger. . . abl e t o enj oy t i nker i ng w i th aut om obi l es as the s t oopi ng, bendi ng, and
s quatt i ng ar e pai nf

ul
. ” W ood , 757 So. 2d at193 ( ¶ 11) ( emphasi s added)
. T he def ens e then pr es ent ed vi deo s ur vei l l ance of W ood doi ng act i vi t i es i nvol vi ng s t oopi ng, bendi ng, and
s q u a ttin g . I

d. at193- 94 ( ¶ 11)
. T he C our tcons i der ed thatW ood had qual i f i ed hi s s t at ement i n hi s depos i t i on, s t at i ng thath e w as a bl e t o do the ac t i vi t i es , butper f or m ance of

t he
a c tiv itie s w a s p a in fu l – o r n o t a s e n jo y a b le
. I

d. at 19 4 (¶ 1 3 ). T h e C o u rtco n clud ed that there

### 12

w a s m o re th a n o n e re a so n a b le in terp re tatio n to W o o d ’s s ta te m e n t, an d it w a s n o t “c lea rly
es t abl i s hed thatW ood know i ngl y m ade f al s e s t at ement s i n di s covery. ” I d. at 19 4 (¶ 1 4 ). T he W ood C our tf

ur thernot ed thatthe def endant“w oul d have a m uch str ongercas e i f W ood h a d a ss e rte d d u rin g h is d e p o sitio n th a t h e w a s in fa c t unabl e t o per f or m hi s w or k f

unct i ons as before
. ” I

d . a t 1 9 4 (¶ 1 6 ) ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ). ¶17. T urni ng t o the i ns t antc as e, K i nzi e s t at ed i n hi s i nt err ogat ory thathe has the f ol l ow i ng l i m i t at i on s: 

### [ N] ot able to c ut gras s or

take c ar e of l awn, unabl e t o per for m hous e c le aning, not a bleto drivebut for

very short pe ri ods of

time , una bleto s tand or wa lk f

or lon g perio d[s] of time, cann ot lift or carry objects or ev en g roceries, d ifficulty enga ging in usua l s exua l a ctivi ti es , unabl e to play and hold grandchi ldren, and oth er activities as be

fore incident
. ( E m phas i s a dded. ) T he m aj or i ty a l l udes that“ as be f or e i nci dent ” i s a qua l i f

i er , m eani ng t hat K i nzi e w as unabl e t o per f or m the l i s t ed ac t i vi t i es a s w ellas he w as abl e t o per f or m them bef or e t he i nci dent
. T he m aj or i ty t hen r el at es W ood’ s qual i f i er– thathe no l ongerenj oyed the ac t i vi t i es – t o K i nzi e’ s al l eged q uali fi eri n the i ns t antcas e. H ow ever , I , l i ke the tr i al j udge, r ead “ as bef

or e i nci dent ” t o m ean t hatK i nzi e coul d notper f or m act i vi t i es thathe
c o u l d p e r f

o r m bef or e th e a c c id e n t. In o th e r w o rd s, K in z ie d id n o t li st a ll o f th e th in g s h e is
n o t able to d o that h e c o u ld d o b efo re the a cc iden t. M y rea d ing o f K inzie’s interrog atory
s t at ementf

i t s per f ect l y w i th w hatthe W

ood C o u rto p ined w o u ld m ak e a stro n g e r c a se . It sta ted th a t th e d e fe n d a n t “w o u ld h a v e a m u c h stro n g e r c a se if W o o d h a d a ss e rte d d u rin g h is dep osi t i on that he w as i n factun able t o p erf orm his w ork functi on s as before
. ” I d . at 19 4 (¶ 1 6 ) ( e mp h a s i s a d d e d )
. T h u s , Ki n z i e i s d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e f r o m W ood , and W

ood pr ovi des
s u p p o rt fo r m y a rg u m e n t.

### 13

¶18. T he maj or i ty s t at es : “K i nzi e i ndi s put abl y w as i nj ur ed. H e w entt o an emer gency r oom i m m edi at el y af

t erhi s acc i dentand, atthatt i m e, w as di agnos ed w i th centr al
- di s c pr otrus i on, d isc d e sic c a tio n , an d d isc b u lg in g . H e u n d e rw e n t an in v a siv e su rg ica l p ro c e d u re o n h is sp in e .” T o b e c lea r, m y d iss e n t d o e s n o t q u e stio n th a t K in z ie w a s in ju re d , an d th e iss u e is
n o t w h e th e r h e v io late d h is d o c to r’s o rd e rs. T h e issu e is w h e th e r th e trial ju d g e a b u se d h is d is c re tio n w h e n d is m is s in g K in z ie ’s c la im s fo r l y in g in h is d is c o v e ry re s p o n s e s . ¶1 9
. K inzie stat ed h e w as: “n o t ab le to cu t g rass o r tak e ca re o f law n , u n ab le to p e rfo rm h o u se c lea n in g , n o t ab le to d riv e b u t fo r v e ry sh o rt p e rio d s o f tim e , u n a b le to sta n d o r w a lk forl ong pe r i od[ s ] of

t i m e, c annotl i f

torc arry obj ect s ore ven gr ocer i es . . . . ” K i nzi e al so
s t at ed i n hi s depos i t i on t hat , w hen he i s out s i de t he house , he has hi s cane w i th hi m . I n t he vi deos obt ai ned by St af f m ark I nves t m ent , K i nzi e w as w orki ng on a bui l di ng i n the r earof K i nzi e’ s hom e; he w as cl i m bi ng a l adder , carryi ng w ood, per f or m i ng carpentry t as ks , and notus i ng hi s cane . Si m pl y put , K i nzi e engage d i n act i vi t i es he s t at ed he w as notabl e t o do. T h u s, I d o n o t ag re e w ith th e m a jo rity ’s c h a ra c ter iza tio n o f K in z ie’ s s tate m e n ts a s m e re ly
m is le a d in g . ¶ 2 0
. T h e C o u rt h a s re c e n tly su m m e d u p th e a b u se o f d isc re tio n sta n d a rd o f re v iew : In sh o rt , i f th e tr ial co u rtap p li es the “co rrect l eg al st an d ard , ” w e m u st affi rm the dec i s i on , regar dl es s of w hatany one of

us i ndi vi dual l y m i ghthave rul ed had w e bee n the j udge, unl es s ther e i s a “ def i ni t e and f

i r m convi ct i on thatthe courtbel ow com m i t t ed cl earerr or . ” See City o f J a c kso n v. R h a ly , 95 So. 3d 602, 607 ( M i s s . 2012) ( ci t at i ons om i t t ed)
. A l though r eas onabl e mi nds m i ght d if fer as to the d ispo sit ion , there is no su p p o rtin the rec o rd tha t the tri al co u rt f ai l ed t o appl y the corr ectl egal s t andar d i n the ca s e s ub j udi ce , f ori ndeed, the tr i al j udge ci t ed ourdeci s i ons i n P ier ce and S cog gins as author i ty, di s pel l i ng any n oti on of

appl yi ng an i ncorr ects t andar d. T he tr i al j udge r el i ed upon the st and ard as anno un ced b y thi s C ou rt . A bu se of di scr et i on i s the m ost d e fe re n tia l s ta n d a rd o f r e v ie w a p p e lla te c o u rt s e m p lo y . See Fi tc h v. Vale ntine ,

### 14

95 9 S o. 2d 10 12 , 10 22 (M i ss. 2 00 7) (“this C ou rtap pli es t he d efer enti al abu se o f d isc re tio n sta n d a rd o f re v iew ” ); s ee al s o W hite v. T h omps on , 822 So. 2d 1 1 2 5 , 1 1 2 8 (M iss. C t. A p p . 2 0 0 2 ) (ab u se o f d iscreti o n “ is hig h ly d efe ren ti al”). A s hm or e v. Mis s i

s s i ppiA uth. on E duc. T

elevi s i on , 1 4 8 S o . 3 d 9 7 7 , 9 8 2 (¶ 1 1 ) (M iss. 2 0 1 4 ). W hi l e I – orany otherm emberof the C our t– m ay nothave c hos en the s ame sancti on had I s atas the tr i al j udge, I cannotagr ee thatthe l ow ercour t ’ s di s m i s s al of the cas e r i s es t o t he le v e l o f a b u s e o f d is c re tio n . ¶ 2 1
. W h e n a d is c o v e ry v io la tio n h a s o c c u rr e d , th e C o u rt h a s h e ld th a t d ism iss a l is
a p p ro p ria te w h e re “ a n y o th e r sa n c tio n b e sid e d ism iss a l w o u ld v irtu a lly a llo w th e p lain tiff to getaw ay w i th l yi ng unde roath w i thouta meani ngf ul penal ty. ” P ier ce , 688 So. 2d at1391. T he P ier ce sta n d a rd g iv e s th e trial ju d g e d isc re tio n o n w h e th e r d ism iss a l is a n a p p ro p ria te
sa n c tio n . W h ile th e C o u rt h a s h e ld th a t co n sid e ra tio n o f le ss e r se n ten c e s is n e c e ss a ry in Am e r i c an Te le

pho ne & Tele

gr ap h Co. v. D ay s I

nn of W inona , 72 0 S o. 2d 17 8, 18 2 (M i ss. 1 9 9 8 ), D ay s I

nn d e a lt w ith th e iss u e o f f a ilu re to p ro se c u te, w h ich is a n iss u e th a t is m a in ly
a ttr ib u ta b le to a n a tto rn e y . C f. P ier ce , 688 So. 2d at1388 ( “Fi nal l y, di s m i s s al m ay be i nap propri at e w hen neg l ecti s pl ai nly at tri bu tabl e t o an att orney rat her than a blam el ess
c lie n t . . . .” ). T h u s , D ay s I nn i s di s t i ngui s habl e f

r om the i ns t antcas e. Fur ther , the P ier ce
s t andar d cons i der s w hethert he di s covery vi ol at i on w as due t o an at t orney, and i n the i ns t ant
c a s e , it w a s n o t. ¶2 2. The tr i a l j ud ge w e i gh e d the P i er ce fact ors, d i s t i ngui s hed the ca s e s ub j udi ce f r om W ood , s t at ed tw o s peci f

i c exa m pl es of K i nzi e m i s r epr es ent i ng hi s condi t i on, and f ound t hat “any s anct i on otherthan .
. . dis m i s s al
. . . w oul d r es ul ti n thi s [ c] our t ’ s condoni ng t he pl ai nt i f f’ s conduct
. ” See A shm ore , 14 8 S o . 3 d at 98 2 (¶ 1 1 ); s ee al s o Al le n v . Na t ’l

R. R.

### 15

P as s engerCor

p. , 9 3 4 S o . 2 d 1 0 0 6 , 1 0 1 3 (M iss . 2 0 0 6 ) (h o ld in g th a t th e re w a s n o “ d e fin ite and f i r m convi ct i on” thatthe tr i al courthad comm i t t ed cl earerr orw hen i tw ei ghed ea ch P ier ce f act or , and the r ecor d di d notcont ai n evi dence of a cl earerr or )
. I n s hor t , the tr i al ju d g e a p p lied th e c o rre c t leg a l sta n d a rd , d e ter m in e d th e p lain tiff ha d en g a g e d in tw o se p a ra te di s covery vi ol at i ons , and conc l uded thatdi s m i s s al w as the onl y appr opr i at e r emedy. ¶ 2 3
. A c c o rd in g ly , I d o n o t h o ld a d e fin ite a n d firm co n v ictio n tha t trial ju d g e a b u se d h is d is c re tio n in d is m is s in g th e c a s e . I w o u ld a ff ir m th e ju d g m e n t o f t h e tr ia l c o u rt . RANDOL P H, P . J . , CHANDL ER AND P I ER CE , J J . , J OI N T HI S OP I NI ON.